The Supreme Court docket bench mentioned that it’ll not intrude with the inquiry (File)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court docket has refused to intrude with the Uttarakhand Excessive Court docket’s interim order dismissing a senior judicial officer’s plea for altering the inquiry officer, who was analyzing costs of sexual harassment towards him, over alleged bias.

A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi rejected the plea of the extra district choose, saying that he can elevate the bottom of bias even after the inquiry towards him will get over.

“We aren’t inclined to intrude with the order handed by the excessive court docket. The Particular Depart Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending software(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

“Nonetheless, the excessive court docket is requested to lastly get rid of the writ petition when the matter is listed on October 31, together with modification software,” the bench mentioned in its current order.

Senior advocate PS Patwalia, who appeared for the petitioner together with advocate Sachin Sharma, argued that his shopper has an impressive document and these allegations had been levelled to embarrass him.

He claimed {that a} day after his plea for a change of inquiry officer was taken up for listening to by the excessive court docket, the inquiry officer had closed the defence and began proceedings ex-parte.

The bench mentioned that it’ll not intrude with the inquiry however can ask the excessive court docket to determine on the plea and move the order.

“If in case you have an excellent case on bias, you’ll succeed. You possibly can argue on the purpose of bias, even after the inquiry will get over”, the bench mentioned.

The extra district choose in his plea has contended that the inquiry officer, who’s a sitting choose of the excessive court docket, can be a member of the committee that had really useful disciplinary inquiry towards him, and any train so carried out can’t be mentioned to be truthful.

He claimed that the excessive court docket on October 8, with out contemplating the details and circumstances of the case, by a non-speaking order gave a prima facie discovering that it was too late for making the allegation of bias towards the presiding officer and had rejected the keep software.

“That it’s a gross case of violation of the precept of pure justice whereby the petitioner, who’s a member of Greater Judicial Service, imparted justice with none spot on his profession for the final 16 years, having excellent ACR all through, is now himself rattling for the justice,” his plea mentioned.

The plea sought a keep on the order of the excessive court docket in addition to on the disciplinary proceedings towards the petitioner.

The plea mentioned that in 2017, the petitioner was transferred from the submit of registrar of the Uttarakhand Excessive Court docket and was posted as First Extra District Decide and Session Decide, Haridwar.

It mentioned that on February 1, 2018, the complainant was directed to affix/connect with the officer of the petitioner as a contractual worker and simply after working for 2 days on February 1 and a couple of, he was directed to affix at another place.

To the shock and shock of the petitioner, he was knowledgeable after being suspended and charge-sheeted that the contractual worker had made a “false and frivolous criticism, dated March 19, 2018, to the district Decide Haridwar, alleging therein that the petitioner had tried to take undue benefit and sexually harassed him on February 1 and a couple of”.

The plea contended that “this naked truth itself exhibits that complainant was planted by somebody having grudges towards the petitioner to defame/disable him from performing his official duties”.

The petition claimed that the complainant and his mom, of their cross-examination carried out earlier than the Inquiry Officer, had admitted that they filed the criticism dated March 19, 2018 solely as a result of they had been promised that the complainant’s job can be regularized.

“Therefore, the complete disciplinary continuing is nothing however a gross abuse of means of regulation,” it mentioned, including that on September 21, the inquiry officer had even refused to permit the complainant to withdraw his criticism.

The plea additionally mentioned that the inquiry officer had dismissed the recusal software dated September 21 filed by the petitioner.

(Apart from the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV workers and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)